It's not what you say...

[mcgazz]

...but it should be.

I like this:
"Intellectually, the debate between religion and secularism is an arid one; there’s barely a single point made by Ditchkins [Dawkins & Hitchens] or their interlocuters that wasn’t made 80 years ago by Bertrand Russell and his opponents. So why is the mass debate - the mots juste - so lively? It’s because what’s at

Comments

[mcgazz]

I hear what you're saying, but I think the writer is talking more about the "debate" that occurs (aided massively by the internet, it has to be said) when atheist fundies declare "God doesn't exist" over and over again with the self-satisfied air of a dog that's just emptied his bowels. Todays secularists haven't got past the "OMG there's no God!" phase that you're supposed to go through when you're 13.

If the Dawkins fanboys got politically active and attempted to influence wider events, rather than wasting their time point-scoring against web-footed Conservapedia types, maybe they could have an effect on policy. You're right about the growing influence of religious nutcases - I think it's because the debate around religion/secularism takes place in an ideological bubble and is unrelated to real events. Creationists can take over schools in the real world because the self-styled defenders of secularism are too busy sneering at cartoons about dinosaurs on the Ark or some crap like that.

9/11 was more political than religious (if it was purely about religion, why didn't they attack, say, the Vatican), and surely Blair & Bush are classic examples of ego-driven politics?

[mcgazz]

You're right, Dawkers just grinds my gears ;-)
I covered that in more detail a while back: http://mcgazz.livejournal.com/160287.html

I think the problem with Militant Atheism is that, by being as fanatical about Not God as the other lot are about God, they:
(a) Have no real effect on the Creationist fruitloops
(b) Put mildly atheist or agnostic people off.

[mcgazz]

> Why do aetheists have to be passive and religous people dynamic?

I'm not saying that. Everyone should stand up for and defend their beliefs but, to be fair, there's a difference between putting the case for a atheism and shouting "WRONG!" at Bible-bashers.

> raising concerns about Creationism that would have otherwise been cheerfully ingored by an apathetic public.

If, by "raising concerns about Creationism", you mean "raising concerns about the dangers of creationists attaining influential positions and using that power to stifle the views of non-creationists" then yes, that is important. But that's a political issue, not a theological one. It's not their nutty beliefs that are the problem here, but what they intend to do.

Tarring lunatic fundies and occasional churchgoers (or even people who claim to be 'spiritual') with the same brush is likely to be counterproductive in the same way that suggesting all Muslims are basically the same as the 9/11 hijackers isn't going to butter many parsnips with Mr Ali in the corner shop. It demonstrates ignorance, in both senses of the word.

Everything I've read by and about Dawkins and his followers suggests that, when they're not smugly decrying all theists as idiots, all they want to discuss is *the actual existence of God*, as if that was the important thing. Their atheism goes no deeper than endlessly asserting the unprovable, as if they witnessed the Big Bang personally. Dawkins describes himself as "culturally Christian". To me, the only thing dafter than basing your morals and ethics on a religion is basing your morals and ethics on a religion you apparently don't believe in. On deciding the there's no God, your first question should be "so now what?", not "where can I find some theists to wind up?". Sartre, a genuine philosopher, rather than a biologist out of his depth, realised this.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/12/sartres-godless-philosophy.html

To be honest, I'm just f*cking sick of that bourgeois liberal humanist 'C Of E Atheism' bullshit - we're supposed to deny God exists then continue to act like Christians - throw the baby out but keep the bathwater.

It'd be like me, as a Commie, shouting "there's no such thing as a free market" (something which is demonstrably true) over and over again but demanding we adhere to capitalism in every other way, except deny the theory that informs the practice.